Adrocknaphobia Jones said: 1. It's not a desktop application if it needs a network and server, hence the term 'desktop' application. You can indeed access CFCs from Flash, but exactly how does that get around needing HTML to make an API call to the browser to get local disk access? (Thanks for pointing that out Barney) You ultra futuristic flash application still needs a browser and HTML. __--------------------------------------------
Well you can write Flash Apps that access data and do not need a network or a server (Screenweaver and Flash Studio Pro can make this possible). Granted they wouldn't run from a central DB, but if standalone functionality is all that is needed....then you can do it 2 cents for a Friday ;-) Bryan Stevenson B.Comm. VP & Director of E-Commerce Development Electric Edge Systems Group Inc. t. 250.920.8830 e. [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------- Macromedia Associate Partner www.macromedia.com --------------------------------------------------------- Vancouver Island ColdFusion Users Group Founder & Director www.cfug-vancouverisland.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Adrocknaphobia Jones" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, March 14, 2003 2:46 PM Subject: RE: Macromedia.Com (The new site?) > 1. It's not a desktop application if it needs a network and server, > hence the term 'desktop' application. You can indeed access CFCs from > Flash, but exactly how does that get around needing HTML to make an API > call to the browser to get local disk access? (Thanks for pointing that > out Barney) You ultra futuristic flash application still needs a browser > and HTML. > > 2. I know java Mr. Zero, and flash is no java. It's a completely > different beast all together. As for cd-roms, why wouldn't I want to use > something more powerful, like Director? Additionally Flash can't access > outside APIs. I can't use a java class in flash, nor could I access > outlook on my PDA to check my calendar. > > 3. I'm not bashing Flash at all. I've been using it for 3 years now, and > Flash MX is awesome. But I'm also not going to claim that Flash is > appropriate for every application in every instance. It is unmatched in > RIA, but don't forget the definition. Rich _Internet_ Application. > > I'm not seeing problems. I'm seeing the limitations and being realistic. > I'm giving reasons for my criticism and I'm trying to understand your > side of the argument. > > Jaye, you say you are down with .NET, so you are obviously not just > privy to MM. Don't you think MS will come out with a competitor to > Flash. I mean if it is the future, they'd be foolish not to. But if they > did, then Flash might not be the future. So you can may be CF programmer > and Multimedia, but you should also remember business. After all, it's > probably second in importance of an emerging technology. > > Adam Wayne Lehman > Web Systems Developer > Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health > Distance Education Division > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jaye Morris - jayeZERO.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, March 14, 2003 5:11 PM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: RE: Macromedia.Com (The new site?) > > 1. You can make a call from flash to a cfc, accessing the cf_file > function and upload a file that way. FlashMX and CFMX are built for > intergraction. Additionally you can do some very cool server side > scripting. > > 2. What about the concept of the web on your desktop, everywhere you > are. In additionl, look at what intel just released in their NEW chip. > Not only low battery usage, mega horsepower but built in wireless > 802.11b connectivity. Flash is JAVA realized. Write your application > once and not only have it to the web, but interactive cd-rom, pda's and > other appliances. > > 3. It seems easy for you (and others) to unendingly bash Flash. It is > really a beautiful thing. Perhaps instead of downing it all the time, > ask why and how. You appear in a specific paradigmn, looking only in > one direction. I am a CF developer but also Multimedia. I am looking > in all directions. CF, .NET, Flash, Remoting, Javascript, CSS, HTML, > etc... > > Is the glass 1/2 empty or 1/2 full. > > I don't dislike you or anybody else, but I do find some of the postions > being taken to be illogical or uninformed. It's too easy to dump on > FlashMX and not fully understand how to bring the resources together and > create great applications. That why people come to us and not the 12 yo > kid. We are professionals. The non-professional see's only problems. > The professional only see's solutions. That's why my clients pay me > what they pay me. > > -//- Jaye > > -----Original Message----- > From: Adrocknaphobia Jones [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, March 14, 2003 4:36 PM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: RE: Macromedia.Com (The new site?) > > Jaye do you have the "I'm smarter than you, so you are wrong" argument > ready for cut and paste? > > Seriously Zero, what did I say that was so idiotic? Could you explain to > me why it's so idiotic so that I could possibly learn something? You > can't blame me for being stupid, if you aren't willing to enlighten me. > > Yes you can manipulate files in conjunction with CFMX, but as I said, > Flash won't replace your traditional desktop app, because it currently > needs the server for its power. Hence, it isn't a desktop application. > > Out side of claiming you are smarter than I, what is your point? > > Adam Wayne Lehman > Web Systems Developer > Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health > Distance Education Division > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jaye Morris - jayeZERO.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, March 14, 2003 3:50 PM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: RE: Macromedia.Com (The new site?) > > I normally try to contain myself, but sometimes people can say really > idiotic things. > > On moving data and files etc... there are ways to get it done in > conjunction with cfmx, but you appear to be a one dimensional thinker. > You are out of your depth. > > As for your theory for the 30 second download, ask that of Joshua Davis > and his dreamless.org. > > You can try to resist the future if you will, but the reality is that > it's coming right for you. Deal with it and as we say in our office, > get over yourself. > > -//- jaye morris > > > > > > I've stopped 19,329 spam messages. You can too! > Get your free, safe spam protection at > http://www.cloudmark.com/spamnetsig/ > > -----Original Message----- > From: Adrocknaphobia Jones [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, March 14, 2003 3:33 PM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: RE: Macromedia.Com (The new site?) > > Yeah. I gotta disagree on the flash replacing traditional desktop apps. > Big draw back of flash is the lacking ability of local file > manipulation. Hence there is no way to upload a file via flash. So even > in the most advanced RIA, if any client files are needed, you have to go > back to HTML. > > It would be really nice to have one single language that could be used > for everything from desktop apps to server side scripting. It was the > goal of Java, but I think it will be accomplished by MS and their CRL > approach. Flash isn't even in the realm of comparison imho. > > As for long load times, are we just going to disregard the studies > proving that if I site doest load fast, people don't view it? I agree > it's impatient and hard to believe people won't wait 30 seconds, but > it's unfortunately true. By the way, if MMs site used to take 30s to > load on my universities connection, I'd hate to see how long it took on > 56k. > > Thankfully MM recognized the feedback (bitching) from our community and > removed half the flash content from the site. Now it's a much more > reasonable speed. If they want to move it back to a complete flash > solution it's probably best to do it slowly over the course of a few > years, not immediately just because they can. > > On the contrary, we need to be as critical as possible. Unlike HTML and > other controlling technologies on the web, this one is under the sole > control of one company. Not the WC3. Outside of Lingo, Macromedia didn't > touch any sort of programming until about 2-3 years ago with > actionScript, and they bought their server side languages. So I think > it's very important and rightly so to be critical as they have never > done anything like this in the past. Luckily they do seem to listen to > developers, cause after all it comes down to us, whether a technology > will be a success. As long as Macromedia forges new territory, expect to > hear me bitching about it deficiencies. You can't expect us all to just > have blind faith. > > Adam Wayne Lehman > Web Systems Developer > Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health > Distance Education Division > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Joshua Miller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, March 14, 2003 1:55 PM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: RE: Macromedia.Com (The new site?) > > This is a snippet of a response to the ZDNet article about > Macromedia.com, I thought I'd pass it along here as well ... > > <RANT> > > ... with RIA applications you will inherently have a longer load time > because you're loading the entire application at once. With traditional > web applications you get page-by-page loads which is faster initially, > but overall I would imagine you sit and wait longer for traditional HTML > pages when all is said and done. > > Think about it - 35 seconds to load an HTML page is slow, but to load 50 > HTML pages it's pretty fast. That's what RIAs give you, the equivalent > of an entire application in one page load. Most users don't complain > about Microsoft Outlook taking 30 seconds to load, it's total lack of > accessibility features and it's generally sluggish behavior when doing > searches, etc. but when a web application doesn't load in 6 seconds and > the link to the second version of the site in HTML doesn't leap out and > grab your attention then everyone is up in arms. We're all accustomed to > looking at application splash screens while waiting for desktop > applications to load, why is it so outrageous for a web application to > do the same? > > You have to realize, what Macromedia is doing is laying the groundwork > for a whole new way to create applications, you can't expect that type > of technology to be 100% from day 1. Eventually web applications will > behave almost identically to desktop applications and in most cases will > even replace them. I would hate to think that the future of software > would be based on HTML. Flash, server-side processing and RIAs are the > future of not only the web, but software as we know it. We need to be > helpful and supportive of this process instead of being so critical. > > With support and positive feedback this process can mature and grow, > Macromedia took their feedback and improved their product, that speaks > volumes about their commitment to the future and to their developers. > > </RANT> > > Joshua Miller > Head Programmer / IT Manager > Garrison Enterprises Inc. > www.garrisonenterprises.net > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > (704) 569-9044 ext. 254 > > ************************************************************************ > ************* > Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, > except where the sender states them to be the views of > Garrison Enterprises Inc. > > This e-mail is intended only for the individual or entity to which it is > addressed and contains information that is private and confidential. If > you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any > dissemination, distribution or copying is strictly prohibited. If you > have received this e-mail in error please delete it immediately and > advise us by return e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > ************************************************************************ > ************* > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Adrocknaphobia Jones [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, March 14, 2003 11:38 AM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: RE: Macromedia.Com (The new site?) > > > Ouch. ZDNet wasn't to kind about macromedia.com. > http://news.zdnet.co.uk/story/0,,t269-s2131698,00.html > > Again, the new version is much better and I hope ZDNet writes a > follow-up article on how Macromedia has graciously responded to all the > criticism. > > But I do with Macromedia would stop touting this argument: "When you > move from an HTML world into a much richer desktop-oriented world, > that's a big change, and people just have difficulty with change," he > said. "Any time you change a Web site, there's an initial week or so > where people don't feel comfortable yet and you hear a lot of feedback." > > It's bullshit. If there is one thing that can be said about web > developers, is that we are accustomed to change. From the tools we use > to the technology, everything changes constantly. We're just critical of > the wrong types of change, not change itself. > > Adam Wayne Lehman > Web Systems Developer > Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health > Distance Education Division > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Pablo Varando [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2003 6:53 PM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: Macromedia.Com (The new site?) > > Well, Macromedia has changed the site with the feedback they received > from the community. http://www.macromedia.com > > Like it better? Worse? > > They also released a report about what they learned (good and bad) from > the first week of the new site. > http://www.macromedia.com/special/progress_report/ > (This is really interesting... you should read it..) > > Pablo > > > > > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=4 FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
